Once a month, The duty challenges philosophy enthusiasts to decipher a current issue based on the theses of a notable thinker.
The crisis that Québec solidaire (QS) is going through is often described as a struggle between “dreamers” and “pragmatists”. This analysis, however, obliterates a strategic conflict of another order, revealing the difficulties of QS since the 2022 elections, and the strong return of the Parti Québécois.
In her resignation letter, Émilise Lessard-Therrien specifies that she sought to “plunge the roots of the party into the regions of Quebec […] and not just where we have a “chance of winning”.” In other words: while the leaders of QS wish to concentrate their energies on constituencies and segments of the population in which they see immediate electoral potential, the former spokesperson wanted to address the entire territory and to all sectors of the population.
The 2022 election results reflect this dilemma. Solidarity, with 15.42% of the vote, won eleven urban constituencies, while recording a decline in their voters in the suburbs and rural areas. At the same time, the PQ, with almost as many votes (14.60%), were content with three elected officials, but accumulated the most second places across Quebec, indicating a potential for progression across the entire territory. . This materialized a few months later in the polls.
What strategic choices explain these almost symmetrically opposed results, for two parties having in common to propose, each in their own way, an ambitious project for the transformation of Quebec society?
Difference and equivalence
The work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe can help us see things more clearly. Known for their work on populism, the two philosophers developed a theory of the conquest and exercise of power in liberal democracies, giving a central place to the concept of hegemony. This designates the reproduction of a social and political order through the dissemination of a shared world vision which, for the majority of citizens, “goes without saying”, to the point where it organizes their relationship to politics, to economy, culture, social relations, etc.
In this context, two strategic logics are available to political parties. Those seeking to drive change within the existing framework will opt for the “logic of difference”. This consists of building an electoral coalition by responding to the demands of different segments of the population. It is thus a question of satisfying a sufficient number of social groups to be brought or brought back to power (the path followed by the CAQ, the PLQ, the PLC and the PCC), or to gain a certain weight in Parliament (which is typically the NDP strategy).
Conversely, a political force wishing to transform, even partially, the existing framework should opt for the “logic of equivalence”. It is about uniting diverse social groups around a “collective will” to change things, a counter-hegemonic project gradually making an “alternative” world view “normal”.
Heterogeneous demands
For Laclau and Mouffe, the equivalence strategy involves articulating a series of social demands not satisfied by the regime in place. To do this, a counter-hegemonic project must cast a wide net, so as to represent the population in its plurality, the only way to build a collective will to change the system.
This is what the PQ has been doing since Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (PSPP) took charge. In addition to resolutely putting forward his independence project, he articulates a set of heterogeneous demands, which reach diverse segments of the electorate: energy transition, secularism, protection of French, rejection of mass immigration, strengthening of public services, etc.
The campaign he is leading on screen time among young people is a convincing example of this strategy, where a subject affecting large sections of the population is represented by a party which thus broadens the scope of its discourse. This issue apparently unrelated to national independence in fact strengthens the PQ project, because they both imply a collective takeover of what seems “self-evident”.
Conversely, those in solidarity treat social demands in a differential mode. After the 2018 elections, QS retreated from demands that were already strongly associated with it, placing greater emphasis on one or the other depending on the circumstances: ecology until 2022, social justice with housing crisis and inclusion to differentiate itself from PQ nationalism.
As Eric Martin pointed out in these pages, the left party “sends targeted messages to targeted electoral clienteles via IT [le conduisant] to lock himself in a bubble where he will address the urban-educated-green electorate who already support him.”
For example, during the last electoral campaign, the proposal to tax polluting vehicles seemed designed to appeal to the urban electorate, but targeted rural and peri-urban populations. She also carried an individualizing vision of the energy transition, quite contradictory with the solidarity project of leaving neoliberalism, which also implies an ambitious collective takeover.
“Them” and “us”
Linking heterogeneous demands into a collective will is an important challenge, since contradictory interests collide within society. Where a strategy of difference can simply select certain demands according to circumstances and power relations (what we call responding to an “electoral clientele”), a counter-hegemonic project must put these demands on a competitive footing. equality to guide them towards a common horizon.
In The illusion of consensus (2016), Mouffe shows that conflict is at the foundation of politics. It is therefore by opposing a common adversary that diverse social groups are able to unite. The whole challenge consists of designating the adversary responsible for their dissatisfaction. From the conflict with a “them” a collective identity will thus be born, a “we”.
To achieve this, the PQ resorts to an old but very effective configuration: the Canadian federation oppressing the Quebec nation. For example, when addressing the housing crisis, PSPP proposes ending mass immigration, which places responsibility for the crisis on the federal system.
Conversely, QS, which in recent months has made housing its hobby horse, was incapable of formulating a significant proposal pointing to a global “them”. In fact, the adversary that the left party names most consistently is “conservative nationalism,” which it associates with the PQ and the CAQ. However, this “them” is much too narrow to link the demands associated with the solidarity project.
As a logical consequence, QS is in difficulty when it comes to designating the “we” embodying its political project. During the 2022 campaign, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois (GND) alternately claimed to be “young people” or “middle class”. In contrast, the “we” of the PQ is crystal clear: it is that of the Quebec nation fighting for its independence.
Moreover, in Populist reason (2005), Laclau emphasizes that a counter-hegemonic project ultimately aims to rebuild the political community. In other words, an equivalence strategy must be integrated into its national context, so as to be able to transform it. For example, on the flags brandished by the demonstrators in spring 2012, the red square quickly found its place in the center of the fleurdelisé.
Thus, if the PQ is in phase with the legacy of the Quiet Revolution on important institutional questions (French language, secularism, immigration), QS systematically takes them against the grain. Where the PQ easily place their “we” in a national continuity, the solidarityists are handicapped by ideological scruples which comfort certain groups of voters, but which leaves a large part of the population cold.
Affects and leadership
As Laclau and Mouffe have constantly reminded us, politics is not only a matter of reason, but also of emotions and affects. They give its consistency, its binder, to “we”, through ranges of emotions such as hope or fraternity, but also indignation and fear.
This is where the figure of the leader takes on its full importance. Through the affects that he diffuses and, paradoxically, by the singularity that he embodies, the leader is able to represent the “we” in its plurality and to transcend its contradictions.
Here again, the PQ and solidarity leaderships are the opposite. Recalling the tribunitian accents of 2012, GND has adopted the typical profile of the contemporary politician, where impeccable technical mastery seems corseted by lines of communication delivered without extra soul. In contrast, PSPP has a less polite, even improvised expression, allowing real popularization efforts to shine through, which gives it a strong authenticity.
At the same time, the PQ leader combines traits that have made the success of the great independence figures: the passion and audacity of Bourgault, the moderate tone and emotion of Lévesque, the determination and concrete radicalism of Parizeau.
What next?
In short, Laclau and Mouffe teach us that to succeed, a transformative political force needs a strategy consistent with its ambitions. This is the mistake that QS made. By associating a classic strategy with a program that is not, the solidarity groups have limited the geographical and social scope of their action, giving up on building a collective will.
Conversely, the PQ’s equivalence strategy has proven to be a success, because it is in line with their political ambitions and because it addresses society as a whole. Laclau and Mouffe would, however, caution: a counter-hegemonic project cannot simply win elections. Even when brought into government, it must continually expand to transform votes into a vision of the world anchored in the challenges of the time.
To suggest a text or to make comments and suggestions, write to Dave Noël at [email protected].